Uh-oh.
Bill Maher’s HBO show stirred-up some nice Mormon bashing this week. Maher’s position is that all religions are crazy and the notion that only a “person of faith” should inhabit the White House is something to be raged against. But for Maher (whom I generally like, btw), Mormonism is especially “crazy.”
Speaking about Romney’s Mormonism:
“43% [of Americans] said they would not vote for a Mormon under any circumstances. We are not ready for a President who wears magic underwear.”
“In the 50’s the Mormons preached that the only way a black man could get into heaven was as a slave.”
“People don’t know about Mormonism. When they find out they will be amazed at how weird it really is…They believe in some stuff that is demonstrably…you can prove that it’s not true. I mean you can’t prove about Jesus, it was 2000 years ago, but Joseph Smith, the prophet of Mormonism lived less than two centuries ago, and he was, excuse me, a con man, and he did preach some really weird stuff that you can prove is not true, like…the Mormons believe that the Indians, the American Indians are a lost tribe of Israel. DNA testing shows that is not true.”
“Brigham Young said that race-mixing should be punishable by death.”
Fun times.
As for his specific points:
- The church does not teach that garments are “magic,” although Marriott’s boat-fire story on 60 minutes is emblematic of such belief, I suppose. And is it really 43% of Americans? I thought it was a high proportion, but not that high.
- I don’t know about the slave thing. I’m not aware of a teaching that late. This may be something to do with the law of adoption and the sealing of Jane Manning James to the Smith family as a servant.
- Regrettably, Brigham Young said something akin to that. Mormonism has come a million miles since then, though.
- FARMS and the Book of Mormon itself espouse a limited geography model and so there is no reason to believe that the Lamanites are the “principal ancestors of the American Indians.” Of course the modern BoM introduction says exactly that and it is a belief that has been widely held and sacralized in the past. I don’t know about now.
Expect more of this all year.
Comment by Ronan — February 20, 2007 @ 4:05 am
I hadn’t heard this yet but I could see it coming. I like Bill Maher too, though I think this is going too far to get a laugh. But I wonder if, in the end, all of this could turn out to be a good thing (call me a crazy optimist).
I think that the effect could be twofold: (1) a more thorough examination of their beliefs and their church by LDS people in an attempt to defend their faith (which may result in some who do not have a firm testimony leaving); and (2) a more widespead examination of the church by those who are honest truth seekers and who had never considered it before, because the caricatures by people like Maher seem so out of whack.
Both of these things will be generally positive, though painful. It is going to be harder than ever to be a “cultural mormon” or remain on the fence. People are going to have to choose, and the choice is going to be better defined. I see that as a positive, though it makes me fear for some. None of this is going to happen just because Bill Maher spouted off–I think watching HBO is actually equated with apostacy in most LDS households, but it is definitely a sign of things to come.
Comment by MCQ — February 20, 2007 @ 5:38 am
In recent polls, something like one-third of all voters have said they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate — and the figure is a bit higher (39 percent) among Republicans. Iowa, where conservative Christians comprise about 37 percent of the GOP electorate, could be trouble.
The above is from Cohen’s column in the Washington Post. As you can see, Maher has never bothered to get his facts straight. But really, does anyone think that the accuracy of the information reported about the church is going to be the bottom-line issue?
Comment by MCQ — February 20, 2007 @ 6:03 am
Along with pretty much every other white male of the 19th century.
Comment by Peter — February 20, 2007 @ 6:29 am
The comment about slavery may have some basis if he’s talking about the 1850s. But 100% of his listeners will think he’s talking about the 1950s.
I don’t necessarily have a problem with stretching the truth for comedic effect as is done here and on South Park. But I do have a problem with those who criticize the church for “not telling the truth” and then promulgate a version of Mormonism and Mormon history that is a corresponding misrepresentation in the opposite direction.
It’s ironic that Maher also preaches “some really weird stuff that you can prove is not true.”
Comment by Left Field — February 20, 2007 @ 7:02 am
Ronan,
Yeah, if you do read some of the writings of men like Harold B. Lee, they were quite racist. He had said this once:
of course, someone like Bill Maher is going to take things out of context and embellish the real record. The burden of proof of the truth then suddenly falls upon us to correct.
Comment by Dan — February 20, 2007 @ 7:18 am
“- The church does not teach that garments are “magic,†although Marriott’s boat-fire story on 60 minutes is emblematic of such belief, I suppose.”
I agree. I did a fairly quick search in the lesson materials and GC addresses on LDS.com and could not come up with a reference to any physical protective powers of garments.
However, at least some level of belief that garments will protect worthy members from injury is almost universal in the Church. Who hasn’t heard of stories of garments saving someone from horrible injury? I think that the belief continues because there has been no official effort to state that garments provide a spiritual barrier, not a physical one.
Comment by Elle — February 20, 2007 @ 7:22 am
It’s hard to understand why anyone would think that race-mixing should be a capital offense. I’d like to see the actual quote, if anyone can find it.
Comment by danithew — February 20, 2007 @ 7:29 am
Danithew,
Alas:
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so” (Journal of Discourses, 10: 110).
But the pertinent point is this: Mormon Sundays are some of the least segregated in America in 2007. Vile comments like this from Brigham Young are so far beyond any reality I know in the church today.
Comment by Ronan — February 20, 2007 @ 7:42 am
Some of the polls do show up to the mid-40%s of Americans as being unwilling in principle to vote for a Mormon. The specific numbers partly reflect the question asked and the polling company used. Regardless of the specific level of intolerance, it’s surely enough to doom Mitt Romney, since the intolerance is highest among exactly the voters he’s trying to use as a core constituency. I don’t think we need to worry too much about the coming Romney storm, however; the gossip from his inner circles is starting to suggest that he won’t be in the race in six months.
Ronan, you say that, “FARMS and the Book of Mormon itself espouse a limited geography model…” I agree that FARMS espouses a limited geography model, but I think the Book of Mormon itself is best described as incredibly vague on geography. A lot of what we get out of it in terms of geography involves our hermeneutics. In any case, the book certainly can be read as espousing a continental model, and some revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants support a definition of the American Indians as Lamanites, pure and simple. A messy, messy question, no matter how we parse it.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — February 20, 2007 @ 7:55 am
RT,
I think it’s a solid hermeneutic. But yeah, Lamanites = Indians cannot easily be shunted aside.
Comment by Ronan — February 20, 2007 @ 8:04 am
RT,
Since you study these processes professionally, I’m interested to learn what you think of the argument that suggests that a Romney candidacy is good for Mormonism to some extent, regardless of one’s politics. (I’m going way out on a limb here and taking a wild guess that Mitt is not your guy.
) In my opinion, the argument has some merit. Here’s my thinking: There are many assumptions about Mormons that are generally accepted but which are unfounded. Other assumptions are true, but ultimately meaningless. Mitt might be the first Mormon many people seriously listen to, and he does a decent job of projecting a sense of competence and normalcy. His presence on TV every night for a few months can help remove some of the barriers that prevent people from taking a serious look at the gospel, especially among the evangelicals. Do you think this argument holds water?
Comment by Mark IV — February 20, 2007 @ 8:22 am
I’m still amazed at the shoddy (you can replace -odd- with -itt- and not be far from the truth here) logic that is employed in maligning Mormonism for being a recent religion. If you think that magic underwear is hard to deal with, what about a God-man raised from the dead? What about transubstantiation or even consubstantiation? What about New Testament miracles? While you can easily maintain that Jesus did not claim any of those things (as various secular revisionists have done), you can NOT maintain that Christians didn’t believe them to be true.
This sounds difficult to distinguish from anti-Catholicism to me, except by its respectability. “We would never vote for someone who wore a magic necklace [rosary].” “We would never vote for someone who believed in a con-man who claimed to speak for God [the Pope].”
As far as the race card, this seems to be scapegoating. I wonder what Maher’s grandparents thought about race relations. While we should regret Young’s statements and be sure to eliminate any echoes of them from our own minds, nineteenth-century (and early to mid twentieth-century) racist ramblings should not be relevant to our current religious discourse.
“We would never vote for someone whose leaders were racists [almost everyone in America through the 1950s but the abolitionists, and even some of them were racist].”
And as far as the Indian origins bit, I agree with JNS that this is a thorny issue, and the current FARMS view requires that the early Mormons misinterpreted their eponymous book, but this seems to me a minor issue, and frankly Indian Israelitism can be laid at the feet of many different religious and secular figures.
Finally, though, I get the sense that with Mormonism, the anti-religious secular believe they have found a way to attack religion in general without being castigated for being anti-religious. If religious people go along with the Mormon bashing because Mormonism is weird, they are going to find themselves in deep trouble because they will have sanctioned the arguments that undercut their own philosophical viability. The only ones left standing would be the Unitarians.
Why can’t we just reject Romney for his politics and stop trying to use Mormonism as a cause? I’m far more worried about the lack of “pure religion and undefiled” in his public political platform than I am about his personal religious affiliation (NB: I am not indicting his personal devotion or moral purity in any way, only his politics).
Comment by Sam MB — February 20, 2007 @ 8:27 am
re: Comment No. 4:
Sorry, Peter — I don’t think that we get an “out” for Brigham’s racism by pointing to the fact that there were lots of other racists during his day. A church that professes to be the ~only~ true Church on the face of the earth, with a prophet who is the ~only~ person on the planet who is authorized to receive universal revelation from God, must be held to a standard higher than society’s lowest common denominator. (I thought the whole idead of following a prophet was the notion that he had more inspiration than the rank and file.)
Let’s face it — it is an embarrassing/shameful/tragic thing that while plenty of “non-members” of Brigham’s day had figured out the universal dignity and worth of all humanity, Brigham was still a slave to the prejudices of the unenlightened masses. One would expect that a man appointed to be prophet to the world (of which Blacks are a part) would have at least as much respect for his fellow humans of a different race as, say, all of those non-LDS abolitionists running around north of the Mason Dixon line who valued their Black brothers and sisters as much as their White brothers and sisters.
I predict that the Romney campaign is going to be a difficult time for the Church. As it stands now, very few educated Americans are joining the Church. When our oddities and foibles and sins of the past are raised for all the world to see, we will begin to fail miserably the Ronan “what would Tom Cruise do/believe” test, and, I fear, we will see an even greater decline in convert baptisms.
Somehow, the Church needs to find a way to recant the bad of our past in order to ensure that the bad does not become a stumbling block for those who could truly benefit from the unique good found in Mormonism.
Buckle your seatbelts — this ride has only begun.
Comment by Antonio Parr — February 20, 2007 @ 8:41 am
Antonio,
I think this is potentially a wonderful opportunity for the church to sweep some cobwebs. Handled honestly and wisely, that is. Veritas vos liberabit.
Comment by Ronan — February 20, 2007 @ 8:48 am
[...] Ouch. Looks like Maher has really done some homework. For a good discussion on this, check out By Common Consent. [...]
Pingback by Check this out… » Blog Archive » Bill Maher on Mormons , Mormonism and Religion — February 20, 2007 @ 9:07 am
Maybe we can call Romney to be a mission president and go back to the relative anonymity we enjoyed before… He’s not going to win, maybe doesn’t deserve to win, and we’re going to all look bad in the process…
Comment by Gavin Guillaume — February 20, 2007 @ 9:22 am
re: Comment # 10
I would never want to match wits w/ RT on Poly Sci, but my sources within the Republican party leadership say that the Republican primary is actually Mitt’s to lose.
They say Rudy is too liberal to make it out of the primaries, and McCain too old and crazy. Plus, apparently Mitt is heads and shoulders above the rest in fundraising?
But who really knows I guess. 1 year is an eternity in politics.
Comment by John Dehlin — February 20, 2007 @ 9:22 am
Antonio, while I agree strongly with your desire for us to move beyond a racist past, I think you overstate the case for double standards for Mormons. Not even the abolitionists and Northerners were non-racist (though they were clearly anti-slavery), and there is no requirement for infallibility in the canon of Mormonism. If the Mormon past can help the broader American public also confront our shared racist past, that would be wonderful, but I believe seeing historic racism as a binding indictment of Mormonism is an oversimplification with significant repercussions.
Personally, again, I am more interested in our capacity to address issues of justice in the here and now. Is the Mormon church of today racist? Is America today racist? What are we doing about it? Is the Mormon church grinding the face of the poor? Is America? What are we doing about it?
And the Mormons went through this before (Reed Smoot hearings) at a time when they were clearly much more fringe. Though it contributed to significant changes, the Mormons seem to have weather 1904 fairly well.
Comment by smb — February 20, 2007 @ 9:25 am
And what exactly does 16 mean? Maher seems to have done little research. The morsels he has plucked are the low-hanging fruit that one of his assistants could have located in about 10 minutes online.
Comment by smb — February 20, 2007 @ 9:26 am
It’s been a long time (about six or seven years, I think) since I’ve enjoyed Maher’s shtick. I have no problem calling him Bill Maher (who I generally loathe, btw). He’s smug, arrogant, simplistic and usually wrong.
Comment by BTD Greg — February 20, 2007 @ 9:37 am
Greg, I beg to differ (!) He’s an entertainer, but usually I agree with his politics. And the point of this (excessive) rant is his anger that atheists cannot run for President. I understand why that would make him want to needle the religious right, using Mormons as an unfortunate scapegoat.
Comment by Ronan — February 20, 2007 @ 9:45 am
SMB — there is not official doctrine of infallibility, although I have heard plenty of GA’s say that when “the prophet speaks the debate is over” and “the Lord will never allow his prophet to lead his people astray”.
Moving beyond infallibility, the Blacks of Brigham’s day certainly had a right to expect from the only prophet on the earth a message of love and encouragement, instead of the dismissive contempt shown by Brother Brigham.
As for the Church today, I agree wholeheartedly that we, as a people, are inclusive and reach out to all of humanity. With the exception of a very small minority, racism is a thing of the past. In that respect, we have repented sincerely (although we never really have taken care of the “confession” part of the repentance process).
Comment by Antonio Parr — February 20, 2007 @ 9:45 am
Re: Comment 20
I mean that he (and/or his staff) have done more research than what I’m used to seeing in the mainstream media, and even more research than the average active Mormon has likely done — to date.
He’s not just doing the normal media shtick — polygamy and denial of priesthood. He’s talking about Lamanite DNA (which is relatively new, and probably still unknown to the majority of active LDS worldwide), and more specific comments by Brigham Young and others in the Journal of Discourses.
To me, this is an order of magnitude more specific than what we’ve heard from the media in the past 10-20 years (think the 60 minutes interviews). To me, it’s somewhat hard-hitting stuff…because it’s backed up by prophetic and/or apostolic quotes from our own published literature.
Not insurmountable, mind you. Just hard hitting and more specific than we’ve seen to date (in my opinion).
Not a huge deal either way. But to me, interesting.
Comment by John Dehlin — February 20, 2007 @ 9:52 am
I would be careful not too over-estimate both Maher’s appeal as well as his audience size. Not too many people are watching him and those who do aren’t exactly the type of people who will be shocked by this.
We’ll have to see what happens as the primaries grow closer.
Comment by Tim J. — February 20, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Dan, where is the HBL quote from?
And RT– can you elaborate about Romney not lasting more than 6 months? Why? Lack of money? Polls not good? Or do they think he’s not going to be able to get past the mormon issue? I think his, um, evolving, political stances are his biggest problem. Paula
Comment by Paula — February 20, 2007 @ 10:02 am
I’d actually give Romney a fair chance at this point. All the buzz is that he has a lot of financial backing lined up already from the types of Republicans who supported the first President Bush. Obviously, he doesn’t have the poll numbers yet, but I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that he has nowhere near the name recognition of John McCain and Rudi Giuliani. I think there’s about a 50% chance that McCain has a meltdown at some point during the campaign and at least that chance (probably more) that Republicans start to lose their enthusiasm for Giuliani when they realize how many personal skeletons he has in his closet. At this point, that leaves Romney. I still think it’s something of a longshot, but it’s not hard to see how it could happen (assuming that the Mormon issue doesn’t derail his campaign early–say, in South Carolina, for example).
Comment by BTD Greg — February 20, 2007 @ 10:08 am
Ronan, thanks for providing the quote.
Brigham Young’s racism seems to be a stark contrast to what I know about Joseph Smith’s views on blacks and his interactions with blacks. I heard Bro. Bushman speak on the subject (of Joseph Smith’s views) and except for a political campaign statement, Joseph Smith seemed to be quite advanced and positive in his views on the subject.
I’ts really too bad Brigham Young maintained his prejudices. Considering his strong allegiance to the Prophet Joseph, if they had a single conversation on the subject, it would have helped to change a lot of past problems/biases in the Church.
Comment by danithew — February 20, 2007 @ 10:24 am
I didn’t think Romney had a chance either, but am now rethinking that. He is everywhere–newspapers, websites, talk shows. I would even argue he’s getting more publicity than Obama. I can’t remember another candidate getting this much pub this early in the game since maybe Perot.
Comment by Tim J. — February 20, 2007 @ 10:26 am
I have to wonder where Brigham Young got his prejudices and his idea that intermarriage with blacks should lead to capital punishment. Is this based on something Ezra or Nehemiah said in relation to Israelite/Jewish intermarriage? Where would he have picked this up?
That perspective seems so out-and-out bizarre.
I also wonder what stories we might have of early LDS black/white intermarriage (or racial intermarriage in general and how those involved were treated by church officials or church courts. I’m fairly certain no one was ever killed - so I can’t understand what Brigham Young actually thought would be done, in a practical sense, since he spoke so strongly on the subject. I wonder if anyone was ever excommunicated for this cause.
Comment by danithew — February 20, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Am I wrong to say that a prophet is a product of his times and that he is influenced by both society AND the fact that he is the mouthpiece of God? And isn’t that why we believe we are blessed to have a LIVING prophet who is a product of his times and can talk to the mores of our generation? And isn’t it wonderful that the light of Christ is in the world and as a society we have the opportunity to advance the cause of human dignity?
Comment by David — February 20, 2007 @ 10:31 am
You know, one result of all this attention…
An awful lot of rank and file Mormons are going to have to come to grips with some uncomfortable facts that they had no idea existed before now.
“Brigham Young had racial predjudices? Say what?!”
Mormon leadership better start thinking fast about how to innoculate the membership against this kind of stuff, or we’re going to be seeing a sudden surge in the numbers of DAMU and ex-Mormon communities. People who’ve been sheltered from uncomfortable truths their entire lives often don’t take kindly to having the rug pulled out from under them.
Comment by Seth R. — February 20, 2007 @ 10:41 am
I dunno, Seth. Consider how many Mormons watched 60 minutes and saw how Brigham’s racism was knocked aside by President Hinckley
Comment by Ronan — February 20, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Seth, I think you’re right. Due to this election we (the general membership of the Church) are likely to see into at least some corners we haven’t previously investigated.
I always had the idea that it was Brigham Young who instituted the ban on blacks getting the priesthood. I thought this was done somewhat tacitly - without a real explanation for it. What I didn’t know (until I read this post) is that Brigham Young elucidated his prejudices so bluntly and that we had them recorded as such in Journal of Discourses.
Again, I’m not sure what scriptural or spiritual basis he is basing his views on as I know of nothing in Joseph Smith’s teachings that justifies this sort of perspective. He must have gotten this particularly severe and rigid interpretation on the subject from sources that are somewhat alien to scripture. I’ll be interested though to read whatever people come up with.
Comment by danithew — February 20, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Paula,
The HBL quote is in Prince’s book about David O. McKay. I don’t have it with me at the moment so I can’t give an exact page number…
Comment by Jon in Austin — February 20, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Meh. I’m actually a bit surprised that you like him, Ronan. I mean someone that thinks all religion is idiocy isn’t particularly enlightened. And I agree with smb, this is low hanging fruit, with little time spent on research.
Comment by J. Stapley — February 20, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Danithew,
Brigham was hopelessly wedded to a popular notion at the time that Africans were subject to the biblical curse of Ham, something which made slavery much more palatable. After all, if God cursed them then slavery must be okay.
That Brigham shared this view is disappointing.
Anyway, read Lester Bush’s seminal spring 1973 Dialogue article.
Comment by Ronan — February 20, 2007 @ 10:59 am
C’mon J — what’s not to like? Bill Mayer has some pretty decent songs like that new one “Waiting on the World to Change”. Plus I hear he’s dating Jessica Simpson now…
Comment by Geoff J — February 20, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Stapley,
Real Time is one of the few shows I have brought across the Atlantic. Obviously I don’t share the extremity of his views on religion, but I do understand his frustration that confessional atheists seem to be excluded right now from high office. Also, religious fanatics and fools are to be raged against at all times and places.
Comment by Ronan — February 20, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Newsflash: Bill Maher is an idiot a@@hole. I fail to see why this loser ever appears on anyone’s radar screen. The fact that he now makes fun of mormons does nothing to make him newsworthy (let alone of good report or praiseworthy).
Next topic please.
Comment by Steve Evans — February 20, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Bill Maher and John Mayer. Two very different personalities.
Maybe this is just some kind of joke and I missed it.
Comment by danithew — February 20, 2007 @ 11:04 am
It still amazes me that people are surprised by Young’s racism. I reject it, but I understand that our society’s stated ideology is much different now than it was then, and where our dogma (I believe a good one, mind you) is that racism is evil, their dogma was that racism was God’s method of organizing human society. The Bible was the key text to justify slavery, after all.
By focusing on those of a prior epoch rather than ourselves, we distract ourselves from the real issues that affect race, issues of economic justice, selfishness, and anti-Christian social policy. We would never own a slave, but will we work to reverse the ghettoization of large portions of America’s non-White population? We find Young’s racial pronouncements ugly and disturbing, but will we vote against school vouchers and other attempts to further degrade the level of education offered to the children of the economically marginalized? Will we stop whining about affirmative action educational practices? Will Whites stop moving out of neighborhoods that minorities move into or withdrawing their children from schools where they are educated?
I think it’s time to move beyond a muddled presentist queasiness with antebellum American Christian racism (including its twentieth-century projections) and face the issues of race now. Sure we’ve made great progress, but we are far far from a good society, and I see little evidence on the basis of stated platforms that indicate Romney would help rather than hurt. Reject his candidacy for those reasons, not because his ancestors were racist.
Comment by Sam MB — February 20, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Steve, I might not disagree with what you are saying about Maher, overall. He had a talk show, that to my knowledge, failed and went off the air. He’s not really as funny or as smart as he projects himself to be.
But since the guy went on television and said these things, it doesn’t hurt that we’re addressing/analyzing the content. For some folks, this stuff is old news.
I’ve been aware of the Ham scriptural interpretation. I’ve been aware of things said about certain groups being spiritual fence-sitters. I just didn’t know about this one Brigham Young quote.
I’m actually glad I learned about this.
Comment by danithew — February 20, 2007 @ 11:08 am
In the context of Maher’s remarks, I’m reminded of how reticent we tend to be about sharing our experiences and beliefs. We brand our reticence a virtue: preserving the sacred. But this morning, it seems to me more a function of preserving our own egos’ grasp onto some things that simply don’t hold up under scrutiny.
Brigham Young racist? Undeniably; even while, as Antonio Parr accurately points out, he professed to represent God to those people whom he despicably despised.
Native Americans lacking Semitic DNA while the Book of Mormon the Church publishes explicitly proclaims them descendants of Lehi’s family? Undeniably.
Mormons hold superstitious and magicky beliefs about garments that the Church could, but chooses not to, correct? Undeniably.
For some, I may be a rotten example of the faith, given how much I don’t believe, so take these thoughts for what they’re worth, but I’m glad to have the flashlight of attention shone onto our society, even if the light only strikes bits and pieces, and even if those who look from the outside may not be interested in seeing the integrity and value of what they illuminate. The light and perspective enables us to see more clearly where we engage in sloppy or self-indulgent thinking.
Does Maher have our best interests at heart? No way. So what? We should value above any degree of wealth, political success, or public esteem a person or circumstance that makes us aware of our own errors, weaknesses, and wrongs.
Comment by greenfrog — February 20, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Don’t oversimplify the supposed “enlightened minds” of the 19th century either.
I’m willing to bet real money that a LOT of abolitionists would still have been repulsed by the idea of an interracial marriage. Just because they were tirelessly opposing slavery doesn’t mean they’d fit-in at a modern college campus.
Even Abraham Lincoln, widely regarded as America’s preeminent champion for racial equality had views on race that, if aired publicly, would get him thrown out of any modern college administration and earn him several death threats on the side.
Comment by Seth R. — February 20, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Bill Maher and John Mayer. Two very different personalities.
WHAT???
Comment by Geoff J — February 20, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Heh.
Comment by danithew — February 20, 2007 @ 11:14 am
John, there’s nothing new about the evidence for an Asian origin for Native Americans. The DNA evidence was pretty solid more than a quarter century ago, and the anthropological evidence probably goes back a half century before that. Murphy and Sutherton act like they’re telling us something new, but we have general authorities talking about it in general conference back in the 1930s.
I have to agree with #30. There’s nothing there that Maher couldn’t have gotten in ten minutes reading the summary talking points from some web page. No matter how new the DNA thing is perceived to be, every critical web site is going to mention it. Maher’s comments all seem pretty superficial to me. As soon as you start talking about human population genetics, he won’t have a clue. And the 1950s thing is just plain wrong. But nuance and fact-checking is probably not generally done for a comedy shtick.
Danithew, I don’t think there’s anything in the BY quote that indicates that BY thinks the alleged penalty is to be executed by mortals rather than by God.
Comment by Left Field — February 20, 2007 @ 11:15 am
HBO’s programming is redeemed by the wonderful Rome. And Extras doesn’t hurt either.
Comment by gst — February 20, 2007 @ 11:18 am
I have to say that it kills me (not in a ha ha way) that when you have a war going on and serious problems with poverty and health care, the American media are asking Romney about the Second Coming. What a circus.
Comment by Ronan — February 20, 2007 @ 11:27 am
What if Romney had told Stephanopolous that when Jesus came again (to this continent) that the U.S. would have ceased to exist as a political entity, so why would Muslims care?
Comment by Mark B. — February 20, 2007 @ 11:29 am
When Maher refers to the slave quotes from the 50’s, he is not refering to Brigham Young and the 1850s, but probably Apostle Mark E. Peterson (among others?) in the 1950s.
For example:
“Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not a reflection of our worthiness or lack of it in the pre-existent life? …[C]an we account in any other way for the birth of some of the children of God in darkest Africa, or in flood-ridden china, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Latter-day Saints. …
“A Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race, seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being forn over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn’t the mercy of God marvelous?
“Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood…. this negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa… in spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful in all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. he will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.”
- LDS “Apostle” Mark E. Petersen, “Race Problems - As They Affect the Church,” Address delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.
The above quote is offensive and obtuse on so many levels its hard not to see why Maher or anyone else would jump all over it. But it is just as obtuse to paint an entire religion and people with a broad brush by hand-picking and flashing a spotlight on only the skeletons in said religion/cultures closet.
Comment by Matt Thurston — February 20, 2007 @ 11:32 am
I wonder if Maher would be talking about the foils of Mormonism if Harry Reid were running for president.
Comment by cj douglass — February 20, 2007 @ 11:34 am
foibles not foils
Comment by cj douglass — February 20, 2007 @ 11:35 am
“In the 50’s the Mormons preached that the only way a black man could get into heaven was as a slave.â€
I’m guessing that this is probably from Mormon Doctrine, which was published around that timeframe. The original version goes on and on quite extensively about this topic.
“As for the Church today, I agree wholeheartedly that we, as a people, are inclusive and reach out to all of humanity. With the exception of a very small minority, racism is a thing of the past.”
I wouldn’t be so quick to pat ourselves on the collective shoulder… The prophet apparently thinks it is still a problem within the church, judging by his recent general conference remarks last April about this very topic.
Comment by Sue — February 20, 2007 @ 11:37 am
And uh, what Matt said.
Comment by Sue — February 20, 2007 @ 11:38 am
I was unaware of this quote by Brigham Young. But let’s consider the other interpretations beside that it was about racial hatefulness. The bible tells of God prohibiting marriage of His people to heathen unbelievers. So the idea of prohibiting marriage to certain types of people was instituted by God, long before Brigham held the keys.
In Brigham’s day, the black branch of our family was denied the priesthood, being still under an old curse. The quote says, “If a white man being of the chosen seed . . . ” Which white men are of the chosen seed? Jewish men? By mixing their blood with that of a prohibited clan, they would violate the ages old prohibition instituted by God, wouldn’t they? I’m not aware that the bible contains the punishment by immediate death part, but the rest of Brigham’s comment sounds like he’s quoting the old testament. I think we’d spend our time better in searching for the source of the idea in the scriptures, than in trying to explain away that Brigham was racist. God is racist, and Brigham was His prophet. God loves all His children, but His punishments have sometimes been harsh and lasting upon many generations.
My guess is that Brigham loved men of all races, but was aware of the full extent of God’s decree against intermarriage of believers (the chosen seed) with people who were non-believers (the tribe of Cain). I’d like to know more about this old curse, even though it hardly matters anymore, since it has recently been released/withdrawn.
Many people will choose to see this policy of the Church of following the declarations of God, as signs of Church racism and hatefullness. We can’t make them see it as faithfulness to God, as we do. My understanding is that neither Joseph nor Brigham had a hateful racist cell in their bodies, but they were aware of God’s curse, and were responsible to God for the administration of it.
Comment by Trueheart — February 20, 2007 @ 11:44 am
In the same 1954 address at BYU, Peterson also offered the following little nuggets of wisdom:
“…the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. This is his objective and we must face it. We must not …feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have.”
And…
“Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to Let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves.”
Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith also use similar rhetoric during the 1950s.
It’s amazing to me that I listened to addresses from apostles at BYU only 30 years after these quote. Only 30 years? One generation removed from this? I wonder how this went over with BYU students in the 50s?
Comment by Matt Thurston — February 20, 2007 @ 11:51 am
Thanks, Matt. I stand corrected. I was aware that Mark E. Petersen had some unplesant views (though I would have omitted the sneer quotes around “Apostle”), but was not familiar with the comment about servants. That’s almost certainly the quote that led to Maher’s remark, though I’m sure Maher didn’t research it himself.
Comment by Left Field — February 20, 2007 @ 11:54 am
My understanding is that neither Joseph nor Brigham had a hateful racist cell in their bodies
You’re going to have a hard time selling that idea around here.
Comment by cj douglass — February 20, 2007 @ 11:55 am
pssst. Trueheart, people of African decent are not descended from Cain, and there was no curse.
Brigham was a complex man. An interesting exchange was recorded in his office journal:
Comment by J. Stapley — February 20, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Re: Comments 30 & 48
“I have to agree with #30. There’s nothing there that Maher couldn’t have gotten in ten minutes reading the summary talking points from some web page.”
Yes. But relative to the depth of past media interviews (or lack thereof)…I think that between Southpark, the “This Week” interview and now Maher, we’re starting to see a whole new level of depth (be it still somewhat shallow). It’s clearly much deeper than the same old “polygamy and blacks” superficial treatment of the past — like in the 60 minutes interview.
They’re now coming closer to striking at the core of the issues behind the issues (at least in my estimation).
Maybe it’s low hanging fruit — but before now we weren’t even getting fruit.
Comment by John Dehlin — February 20, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Reading these past comments by prominent LDS leaders, I’m even more relieved that Spencer W. Kimball helped the church to turn the corner.
Just recent weeks ago I observed a sustaining of an African-American brother to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood. I have also heard him bear his testimony at least twice - both times he has expressed his gratitude for the friendship and warmth and love that he has encountered in the church. He also said that his family was grateful that he found the church.
I also attended a Gladys Knight concert where she bore fervent testimony and talked about her initial experiences where she asked the missionaries: “Do you even like black people?” Thankfully, they could say yes.
Not to mention the chapel that was dedicated just last year, in Harlem. I heard it was an amazing event, though sadly I wasn’t able to attend myself.
While it’s hard to deal with such past comments that have been made by church leaders, it is comforting to know from experience that things have changed quite a bit in the last 30 to 40 years. Some of the more dramatic steps have been very recent. I hope there will be more such changes to come.
Comment by danithew — February 20, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
John Dehlin, don’t confuse “sensationalistic” with “deeper.” There’s nothing deep to Maher. Depth is a tricky term; it implies analyzing underlying causes and getting at the root of an issue. Maher has no interest in such things, nor did the creators of South Park.
You seem to welcome such dust-stirring, as if it helps to resolve prickly points of church history for you. If it does so on a personal level, kudos. But there is an absolutely fundamental difference between being controversial and being deep, and I believe that you do not make such a distinction.
Comment by Steve Evans — February 20, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
Steve,
I don’t believe in controversy for its own sake. But I do strongly believe that sometimes controversy and/or publicity can help force us to deal with the deeper issues that we otherwise would hesitate to confront.
Many, for example, argue that MLK would never have been able to be as successful as he was, without Malcolm X and the Black Panthers doing their thing.
I do think that a widespread awareness by the members of these tougher issues will act (and is acting) as a forcing function for the church to once and for all get this stuff out on the table, and to deal with it more directly.
In other words: controversy (which drives awareness) can act as a forcing function for dealing with the deeper issues.
But your point is well taken.
Comment by John Dehlin — February 20, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Trueheart, we cannot give Brigham Young, or any man, a free pass just because he was a prophet. Of course, we can’t condemn them out of proportion either. We need to analyze their comments based on their understanding and the prevailing attitudes of their day. But a racist comment is still a racist comment, even if their intentions were usually good. If you take away their humanity and deify them, or make them perfect, fairy tale heroes, you are doing just as much a disservice to truth as anti-Mormons who turn them into cartoon villians. Bushman is on the right path when he tries to humanize Joseph Smith. And if Joseph Smith is a “rough stone rolling,” then Brigham Young is a “much rougher stone rolling.”
Also, your comments in #57 seem to make some of the same kind of scriptural justifications for racism that got Young, McConkie, etc in trouble in the first place. Is it not possible that many of these scriptures were racist to begin with? After all, these scriptures are not the inerrent word of God, but were also written by prophets/men subject to certain attitudes of their day.
As for the Brigham Young quote that you were unaware of, you should probably spend a little time working your way through the archives of the skeletons in the LDS closet. Anti-Mormons do a wonderful job of collecting and making such skeletons available.
The various quotes you find need not convince you Young, etc. were not prophets, but at least they’ll convince you they were/are also men. I’m sure you already agree, but saying Young didn’t have a racist cell in his body doesn’t sound like it.
If you want to know more about the “curse” doctrine, The Black Mormon Homepage is an excellent resource: http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/homepage2.html
Comment by Matt Thurston — February 20, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
Left Field (#59), I didn’t put those sneer quotes around the word “Apostle,” but copied the entrie quote from another website. Had I seen or noticed them I would have removed them.
Comment by Matt Thurston — February 20, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
I find it distressing that anyone could attempt to justify Brigham’s or Mark E. Pederson’s or whoever’s racism by pointing to the general climate of the times. For crying out loud, we are supposed to be ~inspired~ — at least as inspired as the “gentiles” and “unbelievers” around us, many of whom had already figured out that you don’t judge a person by race, but by the content of their characters.
We are supposed to be a Church/gathering place for all of God’s children (which, by the way, includes Blacks), and we failed in this regard for decades. We have since turned the corner, and my personal experience has been that the Church as a whole has become/is becoming a color-blind institution. (But then, again, I live east of the Mississippi, in a community that is largely integrated. Perhaps the experience in Utah and Idaho are different.)
Again — we are supposed to be leading the charge on being loving and inspired and a light to the world and the salt of the earth. Getting something wrong as basic to the human condition as racism is no small matter. We were simply wrong on this one, and would do well to repent for many years to come.
Comment by Antonio Parr — February 20, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
P.S. Bushman, in my interviews with him, seemed to agree with this sentiment. We (as a church) have avoided dealing openly with many of the harder issues — and this is now coming back to bite us in very tangible ways. In a sense we mortgaged the tougher conversations for a future day — and it appears as though that day is upon us.
And why are we having these conversations now? BECAUSE of the controversy.
So controversy helps act as a forcing function to finally deal openly with the tougher issues. In the end, I do believe that the impact will be deep — and that folks like Maher, Southpark and others are doing us all a big favor (though that is clearly not their intent). Some day, all of these issues will be “yesterday’s news” for the average Mormon. Today, however, it’s still headline news for the majority.
P.S.S. Just for the record, I don’t believe that there’s anything I’ve covered on my blog/podcast that hasn’t been covered AD NAUSEUM in the bloggernacle, and here on BCC. Some might argue that the bloggernacle feeds on controversy — so I’m not sure if you see yourself and BCC as part of the controversy equation.
I certainly do — but again — only in a positive light.
Comment by John Dehlin — February 20, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
1950s?? How about 2007.
Today, anyone can walk into church-owned Deseret Book and find these “Mormon doctrines” in McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine:
- Blacks are inferior (physically and spiritually) to whites.
Marriage between blacks and persons of any other group is condemned by God.
- Race-based castes and racial segregation are of divine origin.
- Cain and Ham were cursed with black skin; the curses were passed to their posterity, and all black Africans are descended from Cain and Ham.
Hate speech it is, part of our past it is, and thanks to Deseret Book management, part of our present it still is.
Comment by Anonymous — February 20, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
John,
First, the Black Panthers didn’t really come into their own until after Martin Luther King’s assassination. And I wouldn’t lump them in with Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam….
Anyhow, you say that you want the Church “to once and for all get this stuff out on the table, and to deal with it more directly.” I have no idea what you mean by this. It is my experience that when people talk about “this stuff” that they want the Church to deal with, it’s chiefly a way of complaining about their own pet historical issues. It is unlikely that such people have any realistic idea of a) what the issues are or b) what needs to be done to “deal with it.”
Be that as it may, I think you are mistaken if you believe that Bill Maher’s spouting of oft-quoted antimormon factoids will be some sort of catalyst for change within the Church. Enemies of the Church have been throwing out weird BY quotes and anachronisms since time immemorial. The only difference is that now some church members are acting in the same way as our enemies.
Comment by Steve Evans — February 20, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
John,
Your Bushman interview was superb.
Antonio,
Amen. We should be ahead of the curve. On matters of race, I believe Joseph was.
Reading Petersen’s comments, and realising how far we have come since then, leads me to believe that no-one in our generation should be surprised if, in the future, the church departs from other deeply held social views.
Comment by Ronan — February 20, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
P.S. I would think twice before speaking for Richard Bushman.
Comment by Steve Evans — February 20, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Antonio, prejudice and bias are very difficult things to work out of any group of people. Most people on the earth are carrying around some kind of bias, even if they know how to talk the talk, so to speak.
It’s interesting to me that Brigham Young had such an issue with intermarriage, particularly with intermarriage with blacks. Quite frankly, I’ll bet it would be a MAJOR reality check for many so-called enlightened people (LDS or not) if a son/daughter showed up on the doorstep with a black fiance or a black date. I wish that weren’t the case. There are some levels of prejudice/bias that are very easy to hide. But if you want to really test for these a person for bias or prejudice, interracial dating/courtship/marriage can bring them out pretty quickly.
Comment by danithew — February 20, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Anonymous, it is my understanding that Deseret Book will not be continuing their publication of MoDoc and consequently not be caring it.
Comment by J. Stapley — February 20, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
Was there really much opportunity for intermarriage in 19th century Utah?
Comment by Tim J. — February 20, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
This gets to my original concern about Romney’s candidacy, which is that these things would get drug out for public display. The Evangelical’s dislike for us will probably be a real dividing influence. This is all typical of the Karl Rove school of politics, which is to define your opponents in unflattering terms before they can define themselves. I’ve read some of Maher’s published work (one step up from a coloring book, if I recall), and he has nothing kind to say about any religion, and is very demeaning to religious people in general who allow themselves to be deceived by their leaders.
It has been mostly overlooked, although I believe one earlier post did mention it, but our congregation by geography makes us one of the least segrated Christian churches in America today. MLK described the Southern Baptists of the 60’s as the taillights of the civil rights movement, rather than the headlights. We’ve come pretty far over the last fifty years. The “policy” statements of Mark E. Peterson, Bruce McKonkie, and others were common fixtures of my childhood.
I don’t think that Romney has much of a chance, mostly because of the mormon issue, but also becuase of his public policy changes on abortion and other social issues. Unfortunately, anything he says about the church will be seen through a lens of saying what he needs to say to be elected. We’re still mostly defined by others, and perhaps Romney’s candidacy will force us to deal with some of these issues. Meanwhile, we are in for a rough ride.
Comment by Kevinf — February 20, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Hey Steve,
You make fair points. We’ll see.
Also, the Black Panthers were founded in 1966, and MLK was assassinated in 1968. I do think that the Black Panthers had an important influence on bringing more attention/pressure to the civil rights struggle. Not exactly sure the point you are making there.
Finally, I’m not speaking for Bushman, as much as I am trying to paraphrase what he, himself, said on my podcast. To me, he was clear on this point: our inability as a church to effectively and openly deal with many of these issues has caused many people in the church unnecessary pain. You can attack me for this position — but I’m certainly not alone in this perspective, and I do think that Bushman and I agree on this point.
Finally, if you think Bushman was not saying this, I’d love to learn what you think he was saying.
Comment by John Dehlin — February 20, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
“Was there really much opportunity for intermarriage in 19th century Utah?”
Actually, yes. Intermarriage between fourth generation Americans and Scandinavian immigrants. They called it “prairie fever.”
Comment by gst — February 20, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
14:
68:
Antonio,
You misunderstand. I’m not defending Brother Young’s comments, merely pointing out the obivous–Mayer’s selective criticism is disingenuous.
That aside, I’m not sure what is to be gained by removing Young and his ideas from their context and passing anachronistic judgment. It certainly doesn’t make Brigham any more or less of a prophet.
Comment by Peter — February 20, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
I think an issue people have with declaring BY a racist(not that I have a problem with it) is that they equate racism with sin. In fact, I equate it as a grevious sin. It’s difficult for some to see how the church could be Christ’s church with such men leading it. Not that they have to be infallible but shouldn’t they have possessed a little understanding of how God views His children? Could they not understand the most basic principle of the gospel: that all are equal and Gods children. In addition, we hear and learn of these men in our Sunday meetings and apparently most of them were racists. It’s this dychotomy that is so hard for people to wrap their faith around. So, they just say, “The prophets can’t be racists and be led by Christ at the same time, so their attitudes must be somehow ok.” It’s one thing to read about polygamy or Joseph Smith looking through magic glass. It’s another thing to hear that revered Prophets couldn’t even see beyond someones skin color. The feelings of the spirit can be so strong confirming that this is Christ’s church and yet the facts are the facts. It’s this dychotomy that has caused so many so much pain. Sometimes I wonder if I can endure it.
Comment by cj douglass — February 20, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
“P.S. I would think twice before speaking for Richard Bushman.”
What are you trying to say? Do you think twice before speaking for Bushman, or Pres Hinckley, or Joseph Smith, or Nephi?
Can John not interpret Bushman based on several hours of conversations with him without being told that he needs to think twice?
By the way, I thought not twice, but thrice, before speaking for John Dehlin.
Comment by Matt Thurston — February 20, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
antonio,
are you or were you down in UT county?
Comment by doug fabrizio — February 20, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
72:
Thus spake Bushman:
Those Mormons–damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Too progressive for the 19th century, too conservative for the 21st. Maybe that’s why the church did so well in the 20th.
Comment by Peter — February 20, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Ronan said: “Reading Petersen’s comments, and realising how far we have come since then, leads me to believe that no-one in our generation should be surprised if, in the future, the church departs from other deeply held social views.”
Absostinkinglutely.
Do not think for a minute that the good citizens of the Bloggernacle of Yesteryear did not passionately defend the views of Elders Peterson or McConkie on this issue, or Young and Taylor on Polygamy, with the same degree of earnestness and good will that the citizens of the Bloggernacle of Today defend the views of Elders Oaks, Wickman, Packer, etc.
Comment by Matt Thurston — February 20, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
76: Was there really much opportunity for intermarriage in 19th century Utah?
Connell ODonovan has a recent article in The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal (Vol 26, 2006) called “The Mormon priesthood ban and Elder Q. Walker Lewis: ‘an example for his more whiter brethren and to follow” (pp48-100).
It has some fascinating new information about Walker Lews, an early black member of the church and priesthood holder. This paragraph provides a good summary of the article and gives one example of early Mormon miscegenation:
From pages 48-49:
“Further genealogical research into Lewis and his relatives was even more exciting — his large and extremely influential family is perhaps the best documented African-American family, partly due to their critical role in Massachusetts’ abolitionist politics. Walker Lewis himself was literate, educated, upper–middle class (at least by African American standards of the day), and well-connected socially and politically. Laboring his whole life as a very successful barber, Lewis was a radical abolitionist, a prominent organizer of and participant in the Underground Railroad, a Most Worshipful Grand Master of Freemasonry, one of two — or possibly three — free black man known to hold a higher Mormon priesthood in the 1840s, and he almost became a Mormonism’s first and only black polygamist. Despite his abiding faith in Mormonism and acquaintance with and influence among the highest rank of LDS leaders, racism ultimately prevailed in the LDS Church. The inter-racial marriage of his Mormon son to a white Mormon woman so infuriated Brigham Young when he learned of it at the end of 1847 that he wished to have the newlywed couple murdered, and soon thereafter young instigated a complete priesthood ban against all men with any African ancestry at all (and a temple ordinance bans against both black men and women). In February 1852, under pressure from young, Utah’s first governor, the very first territorial Legislature passed a law prohibiting all sexual relations between consenting Africans and white people (whether married or not), accompanied by severe criminal punishment. Pointedly, Young stumped for — and the Legislature passed — this racist law during the half-year that Elder Lewis happened to be in Utah.”
A weakness of the article is its lack of support (even in footnotes) for the claim that BY “wished to have the newlywed couple murdered.†I’d like to be able to evaluate the data he used to support the conclusion.
The author has posted the article online at: http://people.ucsc.edu/~odonovan/elder_walker_lewis.html
Comment by Stirling — February 20, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
John, I haven’t listened to your podcasts, which I understand are superb.
A central problem with applauding Maher and his ilk is that we then enter an arena where the topics of discussion and the parameters for debate are set by enemies of the church. I believe that engaging Maher’s topics is a no-win scenario, similar to many discussions with antagonistic non-members about the tricky points of mormon history. Believing members have little chance for success (however defined) and much opportunity to be ridiculed, and that’s not something I particularly enjoy.
Maher’s heckling can raise important issues, which I think Ronan has quite excellently brought to light. It’s vital that we come to an understanding about them and move forward in our faith. But I am extremely reluctant to give more publicity and attention to such attention-seeking hacks.
Comment by Steve Evans — February 20, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Matt Thurston: “Do you think twice before speaking for Bushman, or Pres Hinckley, or Joseph Smith, or Nephi?”
Yes.
Comment by Steve Evans — February 20, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
My apologies. Bruce R, McConkie. I get to thinking faster than I can type.
RE # 81. It’s not as difficult for me to see how the church could be Christ’s church with men leading it who hold ideas that turn out to be wrong. Part of having a lay ministry pretty much guarantees that you will have somebody saying something they regret later on.
Even McConkie had the courage to admit that he and others had been wrong about the policy on blacks and the priesthood. Eugene England’s essay, “Why the Church is as True as the Gospel” highlights the good that comes our of this. All of us have chances both to potentially be offended or take issue with our leaders, and probably also have the opportunity to be the leader that offends someone else with our own stupid comments. I know that I have been on both sides of that particular divide myself. I could kick myself both for statements and actions that I have made in various callings, and I think it makes me more tolerant of those things in others.
I really don’t like seeing this dirty laundry aired in public, but perhaps, as one of the commentators said after Stephanopoulis’ comments about Romney, maybe we are going through this because Romney is the first Mormon candidate, just as JFK was the first Catholic candidate, Joe Lieberman and Judaism, etc. Interesting to note, though, that when Romney’s father ran for the presidency, the Church’s policies did not seem to gather that much interest. His downfall came from other comments, most notably that he was “brainwashed” on a fact finding tour of Vietnam. I don’t recall the church’s policy on race, or the specter of polygamy, being that much of an issue then, but then I was only a young teenager.
Comment by Kevinf — February 20, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
“Bloggernacle of Yesteryear”
Someone needs to take this idea and build a t-shirt around it.
Comment by HP/JDC — February 20, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Steve (#88),
Good. I’m sure John does too.
Comment by Matt Thurston — February 20, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
An understatement, Stirling!
Comment by Ronan — February 20, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
[HP, It needs a big pic of Lyle on the front.]
Comment by Ronan — February 20, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
Matt (#91),
Why does this thread feel like something out of Junior High?
Comment by Steve Evans — February 20, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
Steve (#88),
But in our secret BCC meetings, you are never shy to talk on behalf of God.
Comment by Ronan — February 20, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
Ronan, you and me. Boanerges.
Comment by Steve Evans — February 20, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Stirling, I might have found a footnote in that article that provides a source for that information about Brigham Young. It’s footnote #114, which leads to this:
I need to go back, get the actual quote that has the footnote and see if that is helpful or not. Maybe someone has this source and can tell us if it says anything relevant to the topic?
Comment by danithew — February 20, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
Steve: Why does this thread feel like something out of Junior High?
Matt (looking up at the Junior High Principal and pointing at Steve): But he started it.
Comment by Matt Thurston — February 20, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
(89)”Even McConkie had the courage to admit that he and others had been wrong about the policy on blacks and the priesthood.â€
Kevin, McConkie’s August 18, 1978 “All Are Alike Unto God Speech†was important: “Forget everything that I have said…or whosoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.â€
But, oddly, when he revised Mormon Doctrine the following year, he removed the book’s claim that blacks could not hold the priesthood, but he retained the rest of book’s negative teachings about blacks (some of which are referred to in 70 above, others in this BCC post)
I wonder what explains the inconsistency.
Comment by Stirling — February 20, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Here’s the paragraph with that footnote #114 in it:
By the way, this is the first time I’ve ever read a specific explanation of events that would lead to Brigham Young banning blacks from receiving the priesthood. Whether this account is true or not, I don’t know for sure. But it sounds plausible so far.
Comment by danithew — February 20, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Re: Comment 87
Steve,
I totally understand and empathize with your concerns. I share many of them (my brother has really helped me on this count as well). This is indeed a painful problem. Very complex.
As an example, for every 100 emails I receive for my podcast, thanking me for helping folks work through their longstanding issues with Mormonism, there is always a handful that emails me to let me know that I actually introduced them to the problems. I get sick to my stomach whenever this happens — because, as you state, there are real risks. I imagine that BCC does the same thing from time to time.
I once had a BYU professor (Vandergraff, I believe) tell us that our testimonies needed to become more like jackhammers (dividing challenges asunder) than like soap bubbles (to be protected in the palms of our hands).
Perhaps we’re all doing our part in this regard. BCC does introduce thousands and thousands of LDS folk each year to issues that they otherwise might never have heard of, as does my podcast. To some degree, we’re doing something similar to that of Maher or Southpark — though hopefully in a more safe/secure environment.
In my mind, the more that we can demonstrate to the struggling that folks like us EXIST (who know all the issues, and remain active/faithful) — perhaps the more that we can help move people from the soap bubble to the jackhammer state.
This post is a fine example of that — and I applaud you and all the others for it. I don’t mean to applaud Maher or Southpark as heroes for their disrespect. But I do feel like the sooner we can cut out the tumor (and publicity forces this issues), the less pain we will have to deal with (hopefully) in the long run.
Thanks for allowing the conversation. I share your ambivalence. I was not trying to hold Maher up as a hero or anything. I’m just trying to see the silver lining in the cloud.
Comment by John Dehlin — February 20, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
cj douglas (#81): It’s one thing to read about polygamy or Joseph Smith looking through magic glass. It’s another thing to hear that revered Prophets couldn’t even see beyond someones skin color.
Ummm… you do know that the original 12 apostles would be considered racists by today’s standards right? They could not stand the idea of preaching to gentiles. It took a powerful revelation to knock some sense into them.
I wonder how you’re going to be able to endure that.
Comment by Geoff J — February 20, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Um, yeah, this is why I hate Mormon Doctrine and the Journal of Discourses. Those books have been quoted as ‘doctrine’ for WAY too long, I hope they die a horrible death soon. Interestingly, my husbands mission prez (an institute director at Idaho State - ? - I believe) always railed against those books and would tell his missionaries not to read them, quote from them, or ever consider them as reliable sources of doctrine (title notwithstanding).
I have to say, in past wards (deep in the heart of texas) that are COMPLETLY white (in towns that are 100 percent white) these crazy ideas are still believed. I think, in general, the actual church is doing a good job of moving away from it (Pres. Hinckleys recent talk was a start to actually addressing these attitudes ‘out in the open’), and I believe, mostly, younger generations (like myself) who didn’t grow up with McConkie and Peterson etc definitly don’t believe such craziness.
Comment by Veritas — February 20, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Kevinf,
I feel what you’re saying. It’s just that racism is no small mistake. That Peterson quote makes my skin crawl. The prophets being wrong about this issue, to me begs the question, did they ever read the scriptures? Like I said, there are mistakes and then there are MISTAKES. Transplant me back to pre 1978 and I’m not a member of this church. I couldn’t handle it. Thanks God for the very powerful Holy Ghost. Sorry, just blowing off some steam.
Comment by cj douglass — February 20, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
I once had a BYU professor (Vandergraff, I believe) tell us that our testimonies needed to become more like jackhammers (dividing challenges asunder) than like soap bubbles (to be protected in the palms of our hands).
Nice analogy. Really. I like that.
Comment by danithew — February 20, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
Geoff,
The Jews not associating with the Gentiles, I beleive, was the will of God for hundreds of years. This apparently was a mistake, unless you believe otherwise.
Comment by cj douglass — February 20, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Danithew, 97, 100. Thanks, I see I missed that in the fourth reference to that marriage, there is a footnote. This does appear to have data supporting the statement. I may have notes on the minutes of that Quorum of the 12 meeting, and I’ll try to find them. In the meantime, I apologize for my criticism at the end of 86.
Comment by Stirling — February 20, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
This apparently was a mistake, unless you believe otherwise.
This - meaning the attitudes about race.
Comment by cj douglass — February 20, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
The issues raised in this post remind me of some of the historical problems the Catholics have needed to address: the Inquisition, treatment of Galileo, behavior in Europe during WWII, etc. Given how long it took them to come clean with their history (and how much worse it all is), the LDS are doing great by comparison. There sure is a long way to go, though.
Revising the intro page to the BoM would be a good start. How problematic that it contains a clear factual inaccuracy (”…PRINCIPLE ancestors…”). I just don’t see how you can get around that. Make that change and ditch the PoGP facimiles somehow: voila, you’ve taken a lot of steam out of the DAMU.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — February 20, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Stirling, no worries at all. I’m very interested to see what the minutes actually say on the matter, assuming they are available in the cited sources.
Comment by danithew — February 20, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
RE # 99
Stirling, Yeah, I was aware of that. I am not a big fan of any edition of MD for that very reason. I prefer to give BRM the benefit of the doubt. Trying to delve into whatever process was involved in the changes in MD just is going to make me angry or sad. I haven’t opened that book for years, just because of that paradox.
One could still read certain passages in the PGP and think that there was something there. However, I prefer the very non-ambiguous “thus saith the Lord” stature of the 1978 revelation. To that extent, I believe BRM really meant what he said in his statement. Maybe some lesser luminary did the editing. I’d like to verify that Deseret Book is really not carrying MD anymore.
Comment by Kevinf — February 20, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
cj douglas (#106, 108): The Jews not associating with the Gentiles, I beleive, was the will of God for hundreds of years. This apparently was a mistake, unless you believe otherwise.
Ok, I’m confused by your comment and the clarification in #108 didn’t help. Do you think the Jewish attitude toward non-Jews was the will of God or not? (I get the feeling you are saying the attitude they had was a man-made mistake but I can’t tell for sure.)
Comment by Geoff J — February 20, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
the Inquisition
um, yeah, I am currently reading through the Malleus Maleficarum, and yeah. Dark stuff.
Comment by J. Stapley — February 20, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
I just checked the Deseret Book website, and they still sell paperback copies of McConkie’s Doctrine there.
Comment by Kevinf — February 20, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
…But I like bubbles they are soo pretty…
Comment by Ben — February 20, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Sorry for the confusion. I was saying that the Jews attitudes toward gentiles were more legit considering God played a part in seperating them in the first place. In fact Christ told them not to teach the Gentiles and then later that they should. I can understand better their confusion. Though you are right that they still might be considered racists by todays standards, in my mind they have a better excuse for their views and actions.
Comment by cj douglass — February 20, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Well, You can still buy MD at Deseret book…
Comment by Matt W. — February 20, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
… But I prefer the sledgehammer…
reminds me of a song I once heard. (Sorry about the double i hit the enter button prematurely!)
Comment by Ben — February 20, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
DB will carry _Mormon Doctrine_ until they are out of stock, as I understand it. Then it will be replaced by a multi-authored volume. Still, that means every copy on the shelves will be sold before the book gets replaced. I KNOW that Helen Whitney (maker of the upcoming PBS documentary on Mormons) has a copy.
I’m skipping a lot of comments because I teach momentarily, but we should note that this morning on the Today show, a Black woman brought up the LDS past again when Romney’s name was raised. (She talked about the fact that peior to 1978, she was considered “cursed” by the LDS Church.) I’ve been hearing replays of the soundbite on the radio, and Darius Gray has been invited to KSL studio to respond.
The issue is not going away. Romney’s run for president actually gives us an opportunity to really confront it.
Comment by Margaret Young — February 20, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
I suspect that there are those who comment here who would rail against one who generations ago restricted his teaching and ministry to just one tribe, saying that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
It’s awfully easy to export our 21st century notions of right and wrong to an earlier day, and condemn those who don’t measure up. If any of us has a clear understanding of the mind of God in 1850, or 1954 for that matter, I’d be anxious to hear from him or her. Frankly, though, I’m not convinced by the argument: “Surely God couldn’t have . . . .” The unspoken parenthetical in that sentence–it goes right before “couldn’t” is “(Who surely is at least as enlightened as I am)”.
Comment by Mark B. — February 20, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
Are there issues that need to be dealt with? YES.
Is Maher likely to make an impact? Probably not.
Will Romney get the GOP nod? Who knows.
Are politics dirty? You betcha. (That is a sad unfortunate fact that needs to be changed in the future.)
Comment by Ben — February 20, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
I include Quinn’s notes on the Dec. 3 1847 meeting below. ODonovan did support the text I called out.
These are the quotes from O’Donovan’s article:
“The inter-racial marriage of his Mormon son to a white Mormon woman so infuriated Brigham Young when he learned of it at the end of 1847 that he wished to have the newlywed couple murdered, and soon thereafter Young instigated a complete priesthood ban against all men with any African ancestry at all (and a temple ordinance ban against both black men and women).†[no footnote, but this is in the intro, and is discussed later]
“Elizabeth Lovejoy Lewis gave birth to their first child, a son, Enoch Lovejoy Lewis, on May 20, 1826. This son would also join the LDS Church in the 1840s and enrage Brigham Young for his inter-racial marriage to a white Mormon.†[no footnote here, either, so it would have been helpful to have a pointer to the later discussion, in case someone doesn’t re-read the whole article prior to posting and then ends up embarrassed for missing a later footnote and discussion]
“…Young confided to them that he would have both Enoch Lovejoy Lewis and his wife Matilda killed “if they were far away from the Gentiles,†instead of in Massachusetts. FN 114.â€
Then, FN 114 refers to the “Minutes of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, December 3, 1847, 6, Miscellaneous Minutes, Brigham Young papers, LDS archives, as quoted in Quinn, Origins of Power, p. 478 and Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, p. 247 and 532, note 145.â€
Quinn’s files are in the Yale Beinecke Manuscript library. This is what Quinn typed regarding those minutes (the “sics†and other comments are his):
“Minutes of Public & Private Meetings (Dec 2-Dec 7, 1847)†Meeting of Apostles
–MS, 16 pages handwritten, in d 1234, Misc. Miutes, Brigham Young Paers, HDC
6-7 (Dec 3, 1847): “Part of minutes of an evening meeting of the Apostles.
“bro Appleby relates bro Waldo’s charge agst. Bro Bates. He considered both parties in the wrong, but rectified it & made peace
“Wm. Smith ordained a black man Elder at Lowell & he has married a white girl & they have a child
“Prest. Young If they were far away from the Gentiles they wod. all on [sic] to be killed - when they mingle seed it is death to all. If a black man & white woman come to you & demand baptism can you deny them? the law is their seed shall not be amalgamated. Mulattoes r/sic/like mules they can’t have children, but if they will be Eunuch for the Kingdom of God’s [“God’s has a line through it] Heaven’s sake they may have a place in the Temple.
“B.Y. The Lamanites r[sic] purely of the house of Israel & it is a curse that is to be removed when the fulness of the Gospel comes.
“O.H. Has taught that if girls marry the half breeds they r [sic] throwing themselves away & becoming as one of them
“B.Y. it is wrong for them to do so. [p. 7]
“B.Y. The Pottawatamies will not own a man who has the negro blood in him–that is the reason why the Indians disown the negro Prophet.”
Comment by Stirling — February 20, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
“The unspoken parenthetical in that sentence–it goes right before “couldn’t†is “(Who surely is at least as enlightened as I am)â€.”
Oh, don’t worry, Mark–none of us around here thinks God is as enlightened as you are!
Comment by Kristine — February 20, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
Stirling, I’m not reading Brigham to be saying they should be murdered. But I am a bit confused by the structure of the phrase. Do you have a reading?
Comment by J. Stapley — February 20, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
“Reading these past comments by prominent LDS leaders, I’m even more relieved that Spencer W. Kimball helped the church to turn the corner.”
I wouldn’t exactly hold up Spencer W. Kimball as a model of racial understanding. His heart was probably in the right place, but he had some extremely strange ideas about race.
Comment by Sue — February 20, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
This is really some strange reading and some strange ideas. It’s the first part of what Brigham Young seems to be saying that concerns me.
“If they were far away from the Gentiles they wod. all on [sic] to be killed - when they mingle seed it is death to all.:
Comment by danithew — February 20, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
cj (#116): Though you are right that they still might be considered racists by todays standards, in my mind they have a better excuse for their views and actions.
So then you get into all sorts of problems. Is racism ok if God allows over even supports it? You said in #81 “I equate [racism] as a grevious sin.” Yet by today’s standards Jesus himself would be called a racist. Are you willing to hold BY and others to a higher standard than Jesus adhered to during his ministry?
Here is what you said about BY and other former church leaders in that comment:
Are you including Jesus and the original apostles in this indictment? If not then you are apparently applying a double standard.
Look, I’m not defending the wrongheaded ideas that Brigham or Elder Peterson held. I’m just pointing out that your sweeping logic also indicts Jesus himself.
Comment by Geoff J — February 20, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
Re: 127
“I’m just pointing out that your sweeping logic also indicts Jesus himself.”
Either that, or it indicts the prejudices of those who produced and translated the Bible.
When what I feel or know to be true is contradicted by scripture — I tend to question the scripture. Given the 8th article of faith, I feel like Mormonism allows for this — even with the Book of Mormon (given the many changes made there, along with all that was left out).
I still hold the scriptures to be sacred and inspired, mind you — just that they are also flawed (to some degree).
I like to keep Jesus and God pure in my mind…vs. blaming them for the prejudices and mistakes of man.
Comment by John Dehlin — February 20, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Whatever floats yer boat John. But there is plenty of evidence that Jesus did not live up to the 21st century moral code we like to project upon him. For instance, Ronan posted on the fact that Jesus and his disciples never condemned slavery in the records either. I’m not saying that is a good thing — I am simply saying that we ought to be careful with our sweeping judgments.
Comment by Geoff J — February 20, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Geoff,
I think you’re right. Though I don’t look at “don’t preach to the gentiles” and “don’t give blacks the priesthood” as the the same thing, I am being a little sweeping with my comments.
Comment by cj douglass — February 20, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
J Stapley (124), of pages 6-7 of the original manuscript, Quinn only typed up a portion of the text in his notes (he appears to have typed out all of some of the subsequent pages). It appears he transcribed all the text related to the Lewis matter. I’d still like to see the copy of the original manuscript. Anyone know if it is available in the DVD set of early church documents?
What to make of this text, “Prest. Young If they were far away from the Gentiles they wod. all on [sic] to be killed - when they mingle seed it is death to all…”
I hesitate to draw any conclusions given my lack of the ful context, the ambiguous nature of the quote, it’s third-hand nature, etc.
However, I think it’s reasonable for ODonovan to interpret the statement as an indication of a deadly animus towards miscegenation.
Note that about 10 years later George Q. Cannon was writing that “illicit intercourse” should be “punished with death.”
Comment by Stirling — February 20, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
I just watched the Today Show segment, with former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and his wife. They were on mostly to discuss their interracial marriage, but talk turned to the 2008 election, and Matt Lauer said that it was interesting to see that both a woman and a black were serious candidates for president. Cohen added :and a mormon”, to which his wife brought up the comment about blacks being cursed until 1978, that God didn’t listen to her prayers. Her husband then said, “but we’re talking about before 1978″. Lauer then turned the discussion elsewhere.
It’s not going away.
Comment by Kevinf — February 20, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Thanks for your perspective, Stirling. I think you are right that it could be interpreted that way, but I think it is far from unequivocal.
Selected Collections has no minutes of the Twelve and USU gave back to the family, Arrington’s notes and transcripts. They are obviously verbotten at the LDS Archives.
Comment by J. Stapley — February 20, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Geoff,
Yeah. Sweeping judgments are bad. I agree.
I just hate to see God and scripture used to justify evil. It happens so often. If the scriptures seem to support evil — then we shouldn’t be afraid to discount them as fallible. Otherwise we continue the evil — in God’s name, nonetheless.
And believe me — 16th through 21st century folk have used all sorts of scriptures to justify all sorts of evil. Better to question the scripture. This is where modern-day prophets (can) really come in handy.
That’s all I was saying.
Comment by John Dehlin — February 20, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
Re: Comment 132
Kevinf,
Do you have a link?
Comment by John Dehlin — February 20, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
127-130, plus or minus a few:
Jesus was a Jew, raised as a Jew with exposure to the tribe-focussed writings of the time (presumably, as he appears to be learned). I don’t have a problem with the idea that he needed to grow into his calling and had to learn certain principles as he went along.
Let’s remember though, that Jesus was a radical force for wiping away barriers (ethnic, gender, disease, etc.) between people. Many of his miracles were performed for gentiles, his recorded preachings were sometimes to gentiles (the Samaritan woman at the well, for example), and his followers would soon take to heart the radical new concept that “God is no respecter of persons.”
Comment by Q — February 20, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Sue (#125) said: “I wouldn’t exactly hold up Spencer W. Kimball as a model of racial understanding. His heart was probably in the right place, but he had some extremely strange ideas about race.”
Agreed. Read Miracle of Forgiveness for Pres Kimball’s insights into interracial marriage.
Speaking of the 1978 revelation, was it Elder Petersen (or someone else?) who insisted that an Ensign article (or was it a news bulletin?) include some kind of statement that discouraged interracial marriage to accompany the statement or announcement of the reversal of the Priesthood ban? Does anyone have that story or source?
Comment by Matt Thurston — February 20, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Link to Today Show broadcast:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17237962/
Click on the “Launch” button in the insert to the print excerpt.
Comment by Kevinf — February 20, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
From my understanding, and this is just from a reliale source, Bruce R. McConkie was told specifically not to write Mormon Doctrine, and that the church leadership at the time disavowed any (and, I beleive, still does) relationship to the book. A little research may uncover more on that.
Comment by angus — February 20, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
Angus, the wikipedia entry for Bruce R. McConkie sheds a little light on the Mormon Doctrine kerfuffle…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_R._McConkie
I’m sure there is probably more to the story…
Comment by Sue — February 20, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
I wonder how far we’re willing to take this business about how the Church’s supposed responsibility to be “ahead of the curve.”
Apparently, church leaders are supposed to immediately embrace any new light or truth that comes forth, regardless of the consequences of embracing that theory or the degree to which the theory bucks the conventional wisdom. So, if President Hinckley takes a trip in a sport utility vehicle, does that mean that he is rejecting Global Warming and, therefore, is not a true p